Discussing the lack of top female starcraft gamers - Page 26

On December 08 2010 09:18 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Even if it doesn't (which the context I found the graph in doesn't say that, I'm also not sure what 'intelligence in relation to GDP would mean'. I drew a line for you to make it clearer, the colour differences are quire subtle, one of the reasons they often don't use mono-hue but shift hues:



As you can see more clearly now the CJK countries are of lighter shade.

I also, again, never said 'natural', I never said that they were born smarter, though it's a possibility.

Maybe, maybe not, how can you know this? All we know their national IQ is lower.

On December 08 2010 09:18 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
A good IQ test by the way is designed to ignore education, though this is a theoretical ideal.

When I was mentioning being "sexually desirable" I didn't mean to say that gaming "makes" you physically less attractive in the eyes of a man. I meant to say that competing against them, rather than playing the traditionally submissive role that is both conditioned and associated with femininity, risks making you seem less feminine. And for most men, less feminine=less sexually desirable. I don't know any guys that would prefer to date a girl who seemed butch, lol.

On December 08 2010 09:18 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Even if it doesn't (which the context I found the graph in doesn't say that, I'm also not sure what 'intelligence in relation to GDP would mean'. I drew a line for you to make it clearer, the colour differences are quire subtle, one of the reasons they often don't use mono-hue but shift hues:



As you can see more clearly now the CJK countries are of lighter shade.

I also, again, never said 'natural', I never said that they were born smarter, though it's a possibility.

Maybe, maybe not, how can you know this? All we know their national IQ is lower.

A good IQ test by the way is designed to ignore education, though this is a theoretical ideal.

As long as we're going on the axiom that testosterone -> aggression. Indeed European males have been shown to have more testosterone than males of other ethnicities. Let us not forget for instance that many ethnicities have less facial hair, and of some the males do not grow facial hair at all.

However throughout history, no ethno-linguistic group seems to have shown the same lust for conquest as Indo-Europeans.

I'm just saying that it's a reasonable position, the only reason people are cautious about such positions is that they are 'politically incorrect'.

This though highlights your slavery to the vaunt of political correctness, what if it's simply true? Have you ever once in your life seen a proof that all races are exactly on the same aptitude in intelligence?

Like I said, I'm a socialist, I'm a woman, I'm a blend of European, native American and North African, but I don't deny stuff I don't want to be true.

It would be completely unlikely anyway if all races had the exact same genetic intelligence. Races adapt to their climate, some climates would require more intelligence than others to survive in, races have differently formed bones, skin tone, blood composition, finger length, strength, all to adapt to the climate they grew up in. Races that live high in the mountains have evolved to be able to make due with less oxygen, races that have evolved in drought actually pee less as to preserve more water. There are simple differences in qualities that are undeniable, you've already made up your mind before you reviewed the evidence.



I fail to see what the offensiveness of some idea has to do with the veracity thereof, after all, offensive is a subjective quality.

The 'reason' is that your explanation here is theorycrafting and 'aesthetic reasoning' but without any backing of why this would be the one true explanation.

Of course, it's an explanation that you want to be true because it's not 'offensive'.

On December 08 2010 21:39 DustyShelf wrote:
Yes Hittites were Indo-European my bad.
Mongols weren't, Aztecs weren't, Lords Resistance Army isn't (Uganda, although I guess one could debate that), Manchuria was all about the Japans, Columbians are again debatable depending on the ethnic make up post Spanish colonisation. Paul Pot was Cambodian.

So I misplaced one at least one. Apologies.

So the ravenging of Europe and Asia by the Mongols.... that's not important right? Cause I mentioned one example that was accidentally Indo-European. So therefore the Mongols don't exist anymore?

If we're going to debate then please do so properly.
If we're just going to argue and split hairs over minor details of each others text as opposed to answering the assertions then I would suggest we move this over to PMs.

I would also be fascinated to hear about your knowledge of the incredibly peaceful period of time for the non Indo-Europeans between the years 0 AD - Present.

Koneko Oh I think you're right, if I stare very hard at that graph, it looks like China is a tiny shade lighter than North America. This is obviously very significant. Do you think that the IQ testers got an accurate sample of the entire population, including rural China and Japan? Do you think that the survey was conducted in a fair and accurate way identically in both the US and in China? Do you think that there is any randomness in the sampling, or did they get the entire population in both countries to do the same IQ test in the same conditions?

Unless you think the answer to all those is yes, then you shouldn't be surprised if there are some small variations in colour. Also, IQ tests suck.

Most IQ tests I ever saw involve basic mathematics and the ability to read the test paper always helps. ;D

Education increases intelligence, helps improve logical thought etc. Hence this argument is invalid.
I don't think that there aren't any differences between races, but those differences are definitely much too small to matter, compared to normal variation within a population and there is no way that any race is less intelligent than another, intelligence is something we have all evolved to need, no matter which society or which place we were in.

Final word: look at famous and influential Physicists and Mathematicians of the last few centuries and I think you will find that most of them were English, French, German, i.e. European. Is this because Europeans are more intelligent than other races? No, it's because of the culture of learning and experimentation that developed in Europe, starting with the industrial revolution, or arguably the Renaissance.

I'm not being politically correct, I'm just telling it how I see it. If you want to convince me that asian people are smarter than africans, or europeans, or any other racial group, then you are going to have to try a lot harder than that!

Defacer
I'm sorry, but all you're doing is looking for some kind of deep-seeded, psychological, biological or anthropological reason to rationalize a niche obsession.

It's like trying to find a scientific reason as to why there aren't more men interested in Days of our Lives, or not more women interested in restoring old trolleys and buses.

You can couch it in as many pie charts and graphs as you want, but if you asked any researcher or scientist worth their salt would admit that these representations are also highly flawed, non-exhaustive, and contain gross generalizations.

Don't mask you insecurity about your obsession by pretending I care about what is offensive or what isn't. I'm not the one trying to rationalize my biases with pseudo-scientific evidence in order to appear LESS offensive.

On December 07 2010 11:03 Defacer wrote:



I'm glad you found my response obnoxious. And you've set nothing straight.

I too, find the majority of the arguments on this thread so laffably sophmoric and overwrought with pseudo-science and racist/sexist research that they are offensive.

Sometimes the answer is dead simple. The reason why there are not that many SC2 female pros is not that many women, or people in general play SC2.

WHY, YOU ASK?

It is not a casual game, or even a game that is accessible to most people.

It's a highly stressful strategy game, designed for e-sport enthusiasts and highly competitive nerds, that requires an abnormal amount of motor skills and a huge investment to even be competitive.

It is about as easy and straight-forward as playing Spanish Guitar with your left hand while playing Chess with your right.

The story, lore and design of the game itself is meant to appeal directly to young men, and young men only, borrowing heavily from Starship Troopers and James Cameron movies.

Unlike other contemporary games, such as Rock Band, Mario Party or even World of Warcraft -- which are responsible for the rising popularity of gaming among women -- it is comparitively anti-social, and you are forced to play the game on it's own terms. It is not "a sandbox game" that people can customize, and has one of the most counter-intuitive interfaces/controls of any mainstream game.

SC2 is a game designed specifically for male, OCD nerds. There is no incentive for women, or most people, to play it unless they really want to hang out with these OCD nerds. Luckily for Blizzard, there's about ten million of us in the world.

I see no reason why there needs to be a more complicated sociological, anthropological or historical reason.

Long live Starcraft 2.

On December 09 2010 08:26 Mente wrote:


You need to over look the s****y posts that people have made and focus on the coherent arguments that the majority of us have presented. That's what this discussion is about. Not some sexist agenda.

Final word: look at famous and influential Physicists and Mathematicians of the last few centuries and I think you will find that most of them were English, French, German, i.e. European. Is this because Europeans are more intelligent than other races? No, it's because of the culture of learning and experimentation that developed in Europe, starting with the industrial revolution, or arguably the Renaissance.

I'm not being politically correct, I'm just telling it how I see it. If you want to convince me that asian people are smarter than africans, or europeans, or any other racial group, then you are going to have to try a lot harder than that!

On January 05 2011 07:30 SolidusR wrote:
Imagine all the stereotypes and jokes made at the expense of computer nerds and gamers, about how they are dirty, smelly, anti-social and irresponsible. Girls have to deal with magnified versions of that because society places far more restrictions upon girls than it does upon boys (U.S. society, at least). Most girls are closet gamers for the most part because they really don't want to see their social life impacted when people learn that they game for fun. Guys are generally more comfortable neglecting their social ties than girls are in addition to the "boys will be boys" mantra that allows most men to do whatever they like for fun and mostly avoid ostracization by their peers. Until girls attain a more equitable life-enjoyment expectancy with boys, there will be low amounts of genuine female gamers (as opposed to the fakes who just pretend so they can get attention from lots of awkward boys, that's another issue altogether).

That's my 2c from a male perspective.

On January 05 2011 09:44 MicroJFox wrote:
It's quite simple.

I have a box with 10,000 ants. I choose the strongest ant in that box, calling it ant A.

I have a box with 10 ants. I choose the strongest ant in that box, calling it ant B.

Probabilistically ant A will nearly always kill ant B. This probability is even magnified if I were to choose the top 5 ants in each box and pit them against each other in a team death match, since a larger sampling will smooth out the probability that ant B was a superant outlier.

On January 05 2011 09:19 link0 wrote:
Go Effka. Represent